The economics and politics of instability, empire, and energy, with a focus on Latin America and the Caribbean, plus other random blather and my wonderful wonderful wife. And I’d like a cigar right now.

April 17, 2014

The partisan calculus behind the national popular vote

Can the constitution be changed without changing the Constitution? Well, yes. Obviously. The Supreme Court can change an interpretation. Congress can establish procedural rules (frex, the filibuster). And states can alter the way they select electors to the Electoral College.

New York state just approved the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which commits states that sign it into law to allocating their electors to the winner of the national popular vote rather than the winner of their state election. If states sign on representing a majority of the Electoral College (e.g., 270 electoral votes) then the U.S. will fundamentally alter the way it elects presidents. Here is the current state of play:

Note that only blue states have signed on. Why is that? Well, I don’t know, but here’s my guess. A national popular vote would behoove both parties to try to mobilize voters that are currently ignored in non-swing states. Republicans would try to turn out conservatives in Wisconsin and New York; Democrats would go after liberals in Texas and Georgia.

Democrats are pretty sure that there are a lot of untapped votes in deep red states. I am not sure that Republicans believe the same about the blue states. But I do not know! Thoughts?

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

A very pessimistic view is that the blue states that passed this are being myopic and only thinking about 2000. A more optimistic view is that voters in urban states think their interests are likely to be more represented by the popular election then by the election as done by the electoral college. So shifting power from Montana (pop: 1 Mil) to Newark, NJ (pop: 0.28 Mil), et al.

I think this movement would change the calculus of the campaigns in Texas, Georgia, Florida, and North Carolina, even if only blue and indigo states make such a rule change. I also think that this movement could pull along New Hampshire and Maine.

I don't think that there could be much impact from following the popular vote.

Well, since the Republican party tends to be more rural, I suspect Republican politicians in Texas are disinclined to support the popularization of the presidential vote. On issues relevant to the election of a president these days, Texans are probably more similar to Montanans than they are to Pennsylvanians, so pushing influence from Montana to Philadelphia doesn't help them get people they want elected president elected president.